Talk:Rules and Policies

Names Rules

The Rules section could probably use a link to Name Rules. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor (Talk), Community Manager (Talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion List Policies Placement

I am not sure the Discussion List policies need to be here. The discussion list has its own page, where these policies are already laid out. This is duplicating information, which should be avoided. If we still feel that it's important to note that the discussion list has rules and policies, then we should link back to that page so the reader can get the full details. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a centralized location is best. I copy-pasted the discussion list rules over because they were short and the main Discussion List page was lengthy and the rules could be potentially overlooked within it. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor (Talk), Community Manager (Talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of duplicating the information, why not provide an emphasized link to the Discussion List page? It would ensure that there is no duplication and also ensure that one of the two does not get outdated. AJ 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I use the central location so that a repository of all aspects is kept in one spot instead of just a repository of links to other pages. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dueling Rule

Due to the big kick up on the DList of 12/08/09, I suggest the following be added to the Other Policies section: Duels are serious business -- not a sport. As such, Dueling Guilds/Groups, that use game mechanics, to duel are against the rules. Dueling Guilds/Groups that use RP are perfectly fine as long as game-enforced duels are NOT used. Marc J. 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And *why* exactly is that? -Chénier 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I too see problems with this rule. It takes legitimate IC potential and limits it OOC for no real reason. If pompous noble fop A, who thinks he's hot 'stuff' with a sword wants to duel pompous noble fop B, who also things he's hot 'stuff' with a sword, then who cares? they take their knocks through in game provided injuries, deaths and perhaps even breaking realm laws. I find it entirely likely that dueling clubs existed back then involving arrogant bored noble fops without the hang-ups of things like morals and empathy to want to brag about their mighty skills and test them against anyone who opens their mouth. A rule like this makes OOC of things that are easily dealt with IC and with game mechanics. Seems to me to be an arbitrary and heavy handed rule.-Balewind

Placeholder Position Holders

Can we get an emphasis for all positions as well? I'm sure that players will try to weasel around saying that the statement says only for rulers and not other positions which is the actual intent of the rule. AJ 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say its just for rulers. But I will add a sentence anyway in the pursuit of clarity. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really hate this recent trend to want to add rules where none were needed. Was this seriously a problem anywhere? If so, where? Having all deviant or non-norm behaviour banned will make for an increasingly predictable, narrow-minded, and limiting play. -Chénier 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Most likely this rule will be removed and replaced with game mechanics disincentives. It will then be allowed, but you will have to suffer the consequences of doing it. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There already *are* game mechanics against it, which is why it irritates me so much. If you step down from a position, you lose honour/prestige, and that is already enough to make people not want to step down for government positions, and at least keep the title 'till the next election. You get region damage if the guy you appoint doesn't have a claim (which placeholders likely won't have). Just add an EXTRA h/p loss for stepping down if you just got it recently, easier fix than some rule likely to create tons of conflicts and frustration among players. -Chénier 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I am told, Marshal positions are not included in this. Can we change the description then, which currently clearly says, and I'll quote: This applies for all positions.? --Gryphon 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rules

Where do they all come from, and *why*? -Chénier 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom's words on the d-list or dev list and talking to Titans about recent cases. As you know, there was no record of the rules that were expected to be followed. As such, we are collecting that information as best as we can and making a central record. We, like anyone else, do not recall every specific rule off the top of our heads and so it takes time to be reminded when certain issues come up for the Titans, we come across an old Tom quote from d-list archives, or Tom mentions something on the dev list as bad. As for why, the reasons vary depending on the exact rule. And as you should know, the ultimate reason for all rules is Tom said so. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been known to change his mind... Take friendly secessions, for example. If you can split in a friendly way why not merge in a friendly way? What if the hated people who had made the split are all gone, and the rest just want to be back in the big family. What's "as equal entities"? Could you at least check with Tom to make sure he still stands by all these rules? It really seems like you're enforcing the common play, but banning every possibility of deviances (typically 1 deviant act is enough to keep people occupied for a while, and things being unpredictable are what makes a game fun). -Chénier 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest this all looks to me like what happens 'when the lawyer types get talking', as Tom's put it in the past. Compromise and and nit pickiness at the cost of the game. The Inalienable Rights are paramount, we all know this. Why all this other stuff? -Balewind

By and large, it's to keep people playing IC, rather than playing the system, and to make sure people are acting as nobles, rather than as 21st century 15-year-old gamers. --Anaris 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the average, median, or modal age of the BM players is anywhere near 15 year olds. These things that are getting forbidden have nothing to do with OOC. You can duel, but not use the game mechanic for it except in a very specific case, even if the actions of your character are the exact same? Seriously? You can break off in friendly terms, but not merge in a friendly manner? I think the problem was illustrated very well by your sentence: are the devs seriously considering us off as if we were all 15 year olds, and therefore insist on holding our hand through every aspect of gameplay? BM has some younger players, but they, unlike in some other games, do not represent the vast majority. What annoys me the most is that it's enforcing such a narrow-minded vision of the middle-ages... The closest thing to what is always being imposed is Great Britain around 15th and 16th century. Late France is also close to what we can find. But a lot of things that are being disallowed or discouraged were actually quite common-place in other countries of Europe within the timeframe BM suggests. Some things that are banned or disallowed even happened in the western feudal nations, in favour of a vision of knighthood tainted by the romantic honourable-good-sir-knight tales. Duelling circuits, for example, have only recently been tolerated, but they still can't use the mechanic. What the hell for? Players found many historical examples of such things happening in the times. Nobles, overall, were not nice, they weren't civilized. The kings and influential lords, perhaps, but the vast majority of nobles were nothing sort of a warrior-caste with no future as they wouldn't inherit any titles because they weren't firstborns. Why... why ban behaviours that do not reduce the fun? Why must everyone play the exact same way? Countries, even provinces did not act or think the same way at all in the times, why are we imposing the same model of society on all realms, where the only changes are how the positions are called and if they are elected or not. Deviancies only stimulate RP, while having everyone work the exact same and silly rules of behaviour just dull the experience. -Chénier 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)